Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

469 profile views
  1. Thank you. This makes sense. And yes, I understand the motions themselves don''t need to be ratified -- that was a poor choice of word on my part. I think the idea is to approve (not ratify) the list of motions itself; however, I'm hearing you say to delete any extraneous and problematic material from the minutes and approve what's left, in which case that list of motion won't come into play.
  2. Thank you. We'll need to amend our bylaws accordingly.
  3. We've had some significant dysfunction in our organization recently, which included a secretary who didn't understand what minutes should (and shouldn't) contain. The last several sets of minutes that she prepared were not approved by the board due to inaccuracies and liability concerns. Our new secretary is not sure what to do with these minutes that aren't approved were never fixed (as the previous secretary took any recommended changes really personally). The new secretary wasn't on the board when those minutes were compiled and then rejected by the board. Is it appropriate to pull out
  4. Thank you! That reference makes sense of the idea that the term follows the position rather than the person. The elections of officers tend to be staggered (so that two remain on when two leave), but that doesn't always work in practice. Perhaps a bylaw amendment clarifying this would be in order.
  5. Whew. Well, if you can't find a reference either, I guess I will stop searching for it. There's nothing in the bylaws about when specific officers serve (odd-numbered or even-numbered years) or what positions they serve alongside of, just that they serve for a two-year term or until their successors are elected. Does that make any difference?
  6. Thank you. This is the information I'm trying to confirm. Is there a reference to this in Robert's Rule's somewhere?
  7. Alas, no, that isn't it ether. That is in essence our situation as well, as it turns out. But I can't find anything specific in Robert's Rules regarding the term following the position rather than the person. In our minds, it makes more sense for the person who has already been elected to a position and served a year (the new president) to only have one year left to serve, and the person who is newly elected (the new vice-president) to serve a full two-year term rather than just the final year of the vice-president's term. However, I remembered reading The Thread that Is Not to Be
  8. I thought that might be it, but no, it's not. It involved a president who resigned, causing the vice-president to become president, and a new vice-president to be appointed in place of the now-president. The old president who resigned was up for re-election, which (if I recall correctly) meant that the new president was going to be up for re-election now (even though he was only one year into his two-year term). The new vice-president, on the other hand, would be elected to a one-year term (for some reason). Does that ring any bells, or did I dream the whole thing?
  9. I recently came across a thread here that discussed the terms of appointed directors, but I'm unable to find it now. It centred around the term length being attached to the position (president, vp, etc.) rather than to the person who was appointed. Can someone point me to the section of RONR that discusses this?
  10. Snort. Not always. Only when properly motivated...
  11. And just to clarify, all nominees can be debated - not just those nominated from the floor, but also those nominated by the Nominating Committee.
  12. Ah. Right. Someday this will sink in, truly. Again, I will remember this eventually. I will. I will. This is all good to know. Thank you (yet again).
  13. Thank you, Mr. Martin. So with regard to his being chair, in one sense that is perhaps an advantage since he is supposed to remain impartial, not speak in debate, or make motions. However, if a motion is made regarding the employee and the resulting vote is a tie, what happens then? How does the chair break the tie if he's married to the employee, without looking biased? Would one solution be to have the vice-chair also not vote on such questions so that her vote can break a potential tie? Or does that muddy the waters too much? Having asked that, though, I strongly suspect that the board, the
  14. Good to hear, and to know. Thank you. I don't believe we have anything in our rules that dictate this. I believe it's just what members "understand" to be the case. Of course, they didn't think the President should be presiding over the elections either, so... Does this mean our new president is free to take part in such discussions as well, even though he can't vote?
  15. I need to issue a HUGE thank you to all of you for your assistance on this issue. Of course, RONR-loser that I am, I didn't think to re-visit this thread until today. I now see that I basically ignored the proper procedure (debating each name as it is brought forward, rather than debating both of them - individually, but consecutively - right before the election took place). Ah well. There's always next time. As it turns out, there were concerns about the other nominee for president (woo hoo - we actually HAD another nominee for president), and so after nominations were closed, I asked the pr
  • Create New...